So...back to "hockey"...can anyone tell me what our plan is for reseeding of the division winners after the conclusion of the divisional playoffs? I'm guessing the seeding will go by regular season divisional ranking with regular season total vote score as the first tiebreaker and regular season first place votes as the second tiebreaker. Does this sound about right?

I was just going to use regular season "points" as the tiebreaker. If there was a tie in that, I would go to first place votes.

Suppose the 2nd place team in one division had more points than the 1st place team in another. And they each won their division in the playoffs. I think that 2nd place team deserves a higher seeding. They'd have likely been first, and with more points too, had they not been behind such a dominant regular season team.

I'm fairly sure it's been demonstrated mathematically in the past that automatically seeding the division winners 1-2-3 in the NHL is backwards logic, if there are a couple of 2nd place teams with more points than one of the division winners.

Quote:

I haven't heard any concrete plan as to how we plan on running this reseeding thing (which I think is an interesting idea, at any rate), and would like to get it nailed down before the playoffs start. One thing that concerns me somewhat - is the reseeding going to be inter-conference or intra-conference? If we just reseed all of the division winners into a single new pool, then the conferences are rendered completely irrelevant, which I think is a poor idea. I think it would be better to re-seed the division winners of one conference into a four team bracket and do the same with the other conference - with the winners of each bracket meeting in the finals. This would preserve the assumption about the meaning of the conferences that most of us made at the beginning of the draft while allowing for re-seeding after the divisional round.

The plan was for the reseeding to be done league-wide, but we can talk about it, too.

I don't see a big deal, personally. If they were conferences in name only, that would be fine with me. If this bothers someone else they should speak up.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Boy Wonder

I'm gonna be honest, I think the effects of VI's presence in these other ATDs were more profound than you are suggesting. Looking at least at his ATD 2010 team, there are some players there that could have really helped others in their quest for a championship, certainly some of the depth players at least. Those ATDs would have went completely different.

Yes, things would have gone differently.

But VI would have been in the draft either way - he'd still be taking players other teams want. That's what GMs do.

Quote:

Originally Posted by EagleBelfour

With all that, I don't have time to send my votes today, is it okay if I do so in 20 hours?

Yep.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sturminator

Then so be it. If we go back to twenty teams, we won't have to discuss Pierre Turgeon anymore.

...or maybe we will!

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sturminator

I should probably come clean now that I am a sock of nik jr. My cover is that I use capital letters at the beginning of sentences. GBC was one of my socks, as well, my cover in that case being general bat**** craziness. Ah...t'was good while it lasted.